“I think Islam hates us,” said Donald J. Trump days before the last debate in Coral Gables, Florida, March 10.

To mainstream media, this was a body blow as big as the blasts at the Brussels airport and metro station, on March 22.

The debate moderator gave Trump room to retract. Or, rather, to furnish the religion-of-peace politically correct pieties supplied by John Kasich before Brussels, and Hillary Clinton after the latest murder-by-Muslim of 31 European innocents.

The Kasich-Clinton statements are interchangeable:

“Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Trump plowed on. To the question, “Did you mean all … Muslims?” he replied by insisting that a large number of Islam’s 1.6 billion strong nation – Ummah – are prepared, even poised, to “use very, very harsh means” against Americans, whom, oddly, he, Donald Trump, would dearly like to protect.

They’re talking about radical Islamic terrorism or radical Islam,” said Trump. “But I will tell you this. There’s something going on that maybe you don’t know about, maybe a lot of other people don’t know about.”

It’s in the “they” and the “but.” Trump, whose pronouns are often missing a subject, was likely questioning the competition’s habit of pairing “radical” with “Islamic terrorism.” For if Islam is radical, as he probably suspects, then the “radical” adjectival is redundant.

People are pacified by such pairings. They persist in using veiled language. We’re up against an “ideology,” they noodle. We have to fight the ISIS “ideology” – which happens to be the al-Qaida “ideology,” is the “ideology” shared by Boko Haram and the Al-Nusra front, and has been the “ideology” around which Islam has organized since the 7th century, without meaningful religious reformation.

The ISIS “ideology” “represents the natural and inevitable outgrowth of a faith that is given over to hate on a massive scale,” writes NRO’s David French. Surveys conducted across the Muslim world reveal that a majority of Muslims are virulent anti-Semites, those “far removed from the Arab-Israeli conflict” as well.

Well, of course. The vilest vitriol in the Quran is reserved for us Jewish “apes.”

“Enormous numbers of Muslims are terrorist sympathizers,” observes French. “Roughly 50 million” are sympathetic to ISIS. “In Britain, for example, more Muslims join ISIS than join the British army.” Overwhelmingly, the Muslims questioned held disgusting views. How can they not? “Polygamy and sexual slavery” (verse 4:3) and the violent subjugation of women (4:34) are commanded in their Holy Book, too.

Delve into the Quran, the hadith and the Sira, and it becomes abundantly clear: Islam is radical, has been for some time.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reacted to Trump’s truism by excerpting dozens of Quranic verses, mandating eternal hatred and contempt for the infidel. More materially, the faithful are to act on that hatred.

In reading the ghoulish litany, you lose count of the variations on the theme of, “Fight unbelievers until Islam reigns supreme” and make “wide slaughter among them.”

True to type, the Christian Science Monitor has tried to discredit Brigitte Gabriel’s estimate of the number of Muslims raring to “cast into the hearts of the unbelievers terror” (3:151). The liberal newspaper ended up bolstering the activist’s case. One percent of Europe’s Muslim population would likely be willing to turn on Europeans. That’s a roiling reservoir of 325,000 Muslims, each capable of “slay[ing] idolaters” (9:5), à la Brussels and Paris (November 2015).

Idiot alert: A small percentage of a huge number is still a bloody big deal.

So while most Muslims are not terrorists, a hell of a lot of them are ready, willing and able to dabble in the lifestyle.

You say, “There are some rough passages in the Hebrew Testament, too.”

Indeed. But they do not apply to anyone any longer – unless, in the words of Mr. Spencer, “you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite.” Unsuited to obedience, we Jews have always argued over, interpreted and reinterpreted our Holy texts.

A principled non-interventionist must be first to concede that America’s adventurous foreign policy is a necessary condition for Muslim aggression; it is, however, far from a sufficient one. (Irrespectively, Americans don’t deserve to die stateside because of their government’s actions abroad.)

“Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards,” stated one of America’s most brilliant writers, Samuel P. Huntington, author of “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.” “The fundamental problem is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam,” he argued, in 1998. Islam is “a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

And Islam counsels conquest, not coexistence. Thus Islamic terrorism is the handiwork of people who’ve heeded, not hijacked, the unreformed Islam.

A President Trump ought to be able to keep his promise and stem the annual influx of 100,000 Muslims (multiplied many times due to family unification and chain migration policies, which allow one qualified sponsor to bring in a tribe).

Legal scholars of the caliber of Eugene Volokh and Eric Posner have reluctantly admitted that a moratorium on, or cessation of, Muslim immigration is not unconstitutional, under the “plenary power doctrine.”

All Muslims can thrive in America. Not all Americans will thrive in the presence of Muslims. This is because the faith of Muslims is Islam. And Islam predisposes to violence.

A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But they could be “triggered” at any time, as was the case with Khalid and Brahim El Bakraoui. It only took this duo and a culprit or two to extinguish 30 lives and maim and mutilate hundreds more.

Brussels’ brothers El Bakraoui have “contributed” as much to their adopted country, Belgium, as Boston’s Tsarnaev brothers have to America.

American public policy is not a program to benefit the world; nor is it a means to a diplomatic end – namely appeasing Kasich’s and Marco Rubio’s partners in the Muslim world.

U.S. public policy must, very plainly, keep Americans safe without aggressing against others.

Since humanity does not have an inherent, natural right to venture wherever, whenever – stopping Muslim mass migration into the U.S. does not violate natural rights.

Media wishing to interview Ilana Mercer, please contact [email protected].

Receive Ilana Mercer's commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Ilana Mercer's alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Where we will email your daily updates
  • A valid zip code or postal code is required
  • Click the button below to sign up for Ilana Mercer’s commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.